(Zero Hedge)—Is it humanitarian empathy, or a nihilistic death cult that desires a legal rationale for population control? The legislative push for government assisted euthanasia in the western world is one of the most guarded topics in establishment media. Nothing negative or critical can be said and all concerns are dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. The government run suicide apparatus is a pure and loving function of progressive society…and how dare you suggest otherwise.
This month officials in England, Wales and Scotland will be considering legislation to legalize government assisted euthanasia (End Of Life bills), with laws similar to those passed in Canada in 2016.
The legislation proposes letting terminally ill people end their life if they:
- Are over 18, live in England or Wales, and have been registered with a GP for at least 12 months.
- Have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure.
- Be expected to die within six months.
- Make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die.
- Satisfy two independent doctors that they are eligible with at least seven days between each assessment.
This type of legalized suicide should be treated as distinct from the “physician assisted suicide” made available in the US in ten different states. There is a stark difference between an individual going out on their own to seek a doctor to help them commit suicide while suffering a terminal condition, versus the government actively encouraging the public to commit suicide and helping them do it using your tax dollars.
There is plenty of room for debate in both cases, but without a doubt no government should be in the business of mass euthanizing the population. There is far too much temptation for the practice to be expanded beyond people who are already dying.
Case in point: Canada’s euthanasia system has been in place for less than a decade and already the government is expanding suicide guidelines for people simply in need of treatment as well as people with mental health issues. This is well beyond the scope of terminal illness.
Keep in mind that the original argument for government euthanasia in 2016 was that it would only happen in very rare cases and only for people with severe illness and suffering great pain. By 2017 after the first government suicide programs were put in place, officials were already arguing for wider application of the program, asserting that euthanasia could save their socialist medical system over $130 million per year in costs (this is one reason why socialist medicine is a bad idea). In other words, killing people is much cheaper than trying to save them.
By extension, it’s also expensive to treat people for mental illness and mental illness could, technically, qualify as terminal suffering. So why not offer them suicide options as well? Canada has made mental illness legal grounds for government aided suicide, but the law does not go into effect until 2027. That said, there are multiple reports of such measures being offered already, including accounts by Canadian military veterans with PTSD being told they could qualify for euthanasia.
But it doesn’t stop there. Canadian lobby groups are calling for the legalization of government euthanasia for children; people they refer to as “Mature Minors”. Such programs are currently in place in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands and there are efforts to do the same in Canada. In 2022, the federally funded Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada paid for a study which argued in favor of MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) for “mature minors”, or children over the age of 12 that were deemed mature enough to make personal medical decisions.
In other words, MAID programs start out as suicide for the terminally ill, then quietly tip-toe out to the mentally ill, and then children who are ill, and no doubt they will eventually apply to mentally ill children.
We’ve seen this kind of Orwellian tip-toe before, but this is a highly sensitive and explosive topic. For decades now, establishment elites have argued for carbon emissions controls and medical treatment controls in the name of supporting socialized medicine. Government funded euthanasia is a natural consequence of these agendas.
Of course, the carbon pollution and climate change narratives are a farce (there is zero concrete evidence of causation between carbon emissions and climate change), and if socialist medicine requires a shrinking population in order to function then socialized medicine is a failed project that needs to be abandoned.
In terms of mental illness, it seems as though governments are taking advantage of people in moments of weakness and confusion and offering them an easy way out instead of a way to get better. They don’t want the public to get better, they want you dead.
It’s interesting that the activism around legalizing suicide for minors coincides with the activism to give children medical independence without parental oversight. The transgender issue and the suicide issue appear to intersect when it comes to medical emancipation.
Should Britain and the rest of the UK adopt government suicide programs like Canada, expect them to also exploit healthcare costs and mental health problems as reasons for more death. As of 2024, 1 out of every 20 deaths in Canada was a government assisted suicide. If they bring children and people dealing with mental illness into the equation, that ratio will skyrocket even further. This is not a rare procedure, it’s a social mainstay.
If the west continues on this path, forget about trying to reverse the decline in population growth. Get ready instead for a swift population collapse.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.
